Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Empty Houses
31 Answers
There is currently a lot of heat (and not much light) being generated on another thread about the possibility of using empty houses as temporary accommodation for victims of the Grenfell Tower fire.
A link :
http://
But I'd like to propose a more wide ranging solution to the problem of people deliberately leaving property empty - using it as a "property bank" asset - not just in London, but throughout the UK.
How about an escalating level of Council Tax on empty housing property - 50% for six months (to allow for 'churn' of tenants) and 100% for the next six months - but then 200%/300%/400%/500% etc as each six months passes - with the surcharged revenue being ring-fenced to improve/provide other housing in the same Council area.
Houses are meant to be Homes - not assets to be traded like stocks and shares by rich Russians and Saudis.
A link :
http://
But I'd like to propose a more wide ranging solution to the problem of people deliberately leaving property empty - using it as a "property bank" asset - not just in London, but throughout the UK.
How about an escalating level of Council Tax on empty housing property - 50% for six months (to allow for 'churn' of tenants) and 100% for the next six months - but then 200%/300%/400%/500% etc as each six months passes - with the surcharged revenue being ring-fenced to improve/provide other housing in the same Council area.
Houses are meant to be Homes - not assets to be traded like stocks and shares by rich Russians and Saudis.
Answers
I think the problem is wider than Kensington and not really related to the fire, apart from the Marxists comments from Corbyn. We have a housing shortage, to have people buying property and then leaving it empty is not on. Housing is a basic necessity.
13:16 Tue 20th Jun 2017
Something needs to be done and you might be surprised to find that housing associations and councils re just as guilty.
The problem is distinguishing between a deliberately empty property being used as a land bank and one that is epmty for another reason such as requiring development etc. In addition in some areas it can take more than 6 months to refurb and get it let out again to suitable tenants, I dont see you can force someone to take poor quality tenants just to get it let out.
I do agree something should be done but need to be careful who you hit. Perhaps a high rate of capital gains tax if the property is sold after never being used?
The problem is distinguishing between a deliberately empty property being used as a land bank and one that is epmty for another reason such as requiring development etc. In addition in some areas it can take more than 6 months to refurb and get it let out again to suitable tenants, I dont see you can force someone to take poor quality tenants just to get it let out.
I do agree something should be done but need to be careful who you hit. Perhaps a high rate of capital gains tax if the property is sold after never being used?
I agree that I've posted a simplistic solution to a complex problem, ymb - nothing is ever quite that easy.
I like your idea about CGT - this definitely isn't about confiscation of assets (as has been suggested elsewhere), just about using legitimate tax measures to achieve a better usage of empty homes.
I like your idea about CGT - this definitely isn't about confiscation of assets (as has been suggested elsewhere), just about using legitimate tax measures to achieve a better usage of empty homes.
I agree, a home is a home although it can be used s an investment. I have owned quite a few over the years we had 5 houses and 4 flats at one time but the investment was in the letting, capital gain was a secondary. We did have to spend quite some time on them though which is why I was cautious on your initial suggestion since we were trying to provide a reasonable quality home for people rather than just clean it and chuck it out. We stripped them bare, replaster, refloor, rewire replumb new GCH, double gazed, the works. Takes time though if you have a full time job.
That is precisely the sort of evil that councils authority dregs already try to do. Demand money from the decent citizens using it as an excuse. It is no one's business if one has a property that they don't live in, any more than it's anyone's business is someone has a car that they don't use, or a garden folk lying idle in the shed, or a breadmaker gathering dust on the kitchen shelf, or anything else for that matter.
Houses are buildings and people are entitled to purchase them. And control freaks who simply look for ways to abuse their victims because they have no morals save their sadistic desires should butt out.
Plenty of residences at the estate agents for those capable of buying one. Trying to find scapegoats for authority allowed issues is totally immoral. One wonders who the councils would turn on next if all property was occupied and they couldn't use it as an excuse for their own incompetence any more.
Gee this thread seems to be supporting past eastern European totalitarianism. Hoping the State will dump on anyone for any reason because citizens are worth less than what's found in the toilet bowl ?
Houses are buildings and people are entitled to purchase them. And control freaks who simply look for ways to abuse their victims because they have no morals save their sadistic desires should butt out.
Plenty of residences at the estate agents for those capable of buying one. Trying to find scapegoats for authority allowed issues is totally immoral. One wonders who the councils would turn on next if all property was occupied and they couldn't use it as an excuse for their own incompetence any more.
Gee this thread seems to be supporting past eastern European totalitarianism. Hoping the State will dump on anyone for any reason because citizens are worth less than what's found in the toilet bowl ?
I am not sure how, in reality, this would work or help. It would be easy enough for those who own property bank properties to employ professional tenants which would not help with the issue of genuine homelessness and would avoid the CGT issue. I could see genuine landlords and home owners getting hit.
oh and PS councils in Hampshire already escalate council tax for home unoccupied for more than 2 years
http://
http://
Not quite a Police state.
Providing the controls are in place it prevents swathes of property and land being held simply to make a profit. Due to mass immigration this country is no longer big enough to be able to allow that so measures need to be taken to ensure prperty is not being simply used as a land bank. it does not have to be draconian.
Providing the controls are in place it prevents swathes of property and land being held simply to make a profit. Due to mass immigration this country is no longer big enough to be able to allow that so measures need to be taken to ensure prperty is not being simply used as a land bank. it does not have to be draconian.
the problem is the controls get ever more complex in the end you either don't bother or you start confiscating homes when perhaps that was not the intention in the cases that fit the parameters that are set. Eg so what area? are some exempt? if not what about holiday homes? how many? etc etc. the system is like it is because it's not far off right. Owners pay council tax for having an empty house. At what point are they confiscatable? Difficult to devise the rules.
Not advocating cofiscating anything.
Simply if the property has not been occupied for say 75% of the time then hit the sale with say 80% CGT. if you bought a holiday home as simply that then no issue as you wont mind paying the CGT, if you bought it as an investment then you get clobbered.
Holiday homes are the scourge of villages and cause local amenities like schools.,shops and pubs to close.
Simply if the property has not been occupied for say 75% of the time then hit the sale with say 80% CGT. if you bought a holiday home as simply that then no issue as you wont mind paying the CGT, if you bought it as an investment then you get clobbered.
Holiday homes are the scourge of villages and cause local amenities like schools.,shops and pubs to close.
To either ban people from buying property, or rendering it impractical to own property by imposing extortionate taxes is a slippery slope to governmental control over personal freedom. People invest in various ways; some in stocks and shares, some in art, antiques and other valuable collectables, for example, others in property. What we do with our own money and how we invest it is and must remain a personal choice. If homes are needed the burden of responsibility for providing those homes should not be imposed upon, or shifted on to the shoulders of society as a whole. That amounts to a dereliction of duty by the people we pay, through our taxes, to manage. Other solutions should be sought and employed.
I believe that the two basics for human survival are food and shelter?
Let me take you back to the 19th Century when absentee English landlords exported food crops for profit whilst Irish people starved when the potato crop failed. The profit motive was paramount and even where local benefactors tried to buy corn at market prices to distribute, they were refused access to it as contracts had already been made for export. So the actions of the landlords in removing food from the market resulted in mass starvation. These landlords are rightly reviled by history for their inhumanity.
In what way is this different from removing houses from the market (by deliberately leaving them unoccupied) and causing huge suffering to people who thus have no proper homes?
Let me take you back to the 19th Century when absentee English landlords exported food crops for profit whilst Irish people starved when the potato crop failed. The profit motive was paramount and even where local benefactors tried to buy corn at market prices to distribute, they were refused access to it as contracts had already been made for export. So the actions of the landlords in removing food from the market resulted in mass starvation. These landlords are rightly reviled by history for their inhumanity.
In what way is this different from removing houses from the market (by deliberately leaving them unoccupied) and causing huge suffering to people who thus have no proper homes?
No-one is seeking to prevent anyone from investing in property - the punitive taxation I suggest in my OP would only apply if that property is then not used to house people.
Yes other solutions to the housing crisis are needed - much more should be done by various levels of national and local government - but let's address the 'leaving houses empty for profit' problem too.
Yes other solutions to the housing crisis are needed - much more should be done by various levels of national and local government - but let's address the 'leaving houses empty for profit' problem too.
Ok, so lets say we seize these properties and use them to house those displaced by the fire. Are they rent free? if not who gets the rent? do we give that to the original owners? or do we confiscate that too? After all they are all rich *** getting rich on the backs of the poor. Perhaps the councils keeps the rent or indeed they live rent free. Ain't that simple is it? In reality we'd be funding bl00d sucking lawyers as usual.
sunny-dave, as heart-wrenching as your story is, the 19th century Irish famine has no bearing whatsoever on the current situation. The fact is if there are too few homes available the responsibility falls square upon those whose job it is to ensure that the needs of an ever-increasing population are met – and that isn’t the private property owner.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
